Civic Register
| 4.16.21
Democrats Introduce Bill to Expand the Supreme Court by Four Justices, Tip Balance In Favor of Liberals
Do you support or oppose adding four justices to the Supreme Court to give liberals the majority?
What’s the story?
- A group of congressional Democrats on Thursday announced that they’re introducing legislation to add four more justices to the Supreme Court in an effort to alter the balance of the nation’s highest court in favor of liberals.
- The bill’s lead Senate sponsor, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), said the Judiciary Act of 2021 is an effort to reverse the damage that he believes Republicans did to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court by adding four seats to the Court after eliminating the Senate filibuster:
“Just days before the 2020 presidential election, even while Americans were casting ballots, Leader McConnell and his Republican colleagues confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to the Court to fill the seat held by the late, great Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. So much for letting the people weigh in. As a result, we have a stilted, illegitimate, six-three conservative majority on the Court that has caused this crisis of confidence in our country. The Republicans stole two seats on the Supreme Court, and now it is up to us to repair that damage.”
- House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) is among the lead House sponsors of the bill, said in a press conference, “We aren’t packing the Court, we’re unpacking it.” He also said that he intends to hold a markup hearing on the bill to expand the Supreme Court but didn’t offer a timeline and said, “We’ll have to see where it fits on our schedule, but I anticipate it.”
- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was asked at her weekly press conference if she supports the bill and intends to bring it to the floor and responded:
“No. I support the president’s commission to study such a proposal… I don’t know that that’s a good idea or a bad idea. I think it’s an idea that should be considered, and I think the president is taking the right approach to have a commission to study such a thing. It’s a big step. It’s not out of the question, it has been done before in the history of our country a long time ago. And the growth of our country, the size of our country, the growth of our challenges in terms of the economy etcetera might necessitate such a thing. But to answer your question, I have no plans to bring it to the floor, no.”
- Biden’s position on expanding the Supreme Court has evolved over the course of his political career. While he was the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Biden said court-packing was a “bonehead idea” and “terrible, terrible mistake” that would undermine the Court’s integrity.
- After launching his presidential campaign in 2019, Biden said Democrats would “rue the day” they pursue court-packing. Over the course of his campaign, Biden began to dodge questions on the issue and tried to avoid answering the question prior to the election. Less than two weeks before the election, Biden relented and committed to forming a commission on the issue to placate Democrats who were calling for the Court to be expanded and packed with liberal justices who could overwhelm the Court’s current 6-3 conservative majority. Biden established the commission through executive order on April 9, 2021, which will release its findings this fall.
- Two of the most prominent Supreme Court justices in recent memory who are considered to be liberals in their jurisprudence have expressed opposition to expanding the Court beyond nine justices for the purpose of packing it with justices to suit the political desire of the party in power.
- Prior to her death, the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told NPR that “nine seems to be a good number” of justices and “it was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court.” Ginsburg added:
“If anything would make the Court look partisan, it would be that ― one side saying, ‘When we’re in power, we’re going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.’”
- Last Tuesday, Justice Stephen Breyer spoke for two hours at Harvard Law School to warn against court packing efforts and said he hoped to “make those whose instincts may favor important structural change or other similar institutional change, such as forms of ‘court-packing,’ think long and hard before they embody those changes in law.” Breyer said:
“If the public sees judges as politicians in robes, its confidence in the courts, and in the rule of law itself, can only diminish, diminishing the court’s power, including its power to act as a check on other branches… I hope and expect that the Court will retain its authority. But that authority, like the rule of law, depends on trust, a trust that the Court is guided by legal principle, not politics. Structural alteration motivated by the perception of political influence can only feed that perception, further eroding that trust.”
- The size of the Court has ranged between five and 10 justices, and the number of justices changed six times before it settled at nine justices in 1869. During the Civil War, the Republican Congress expanded the Court to 10 to let Abraham Lincoln make more appointments, but after the war reduced it to eight to prevent Andrew Johnson from making appointments. The number of justices was then restored to nine justices in 1869 after Ulysses Grant took office. Since then, the most serious challenge to the nine-justice Supreme Court came from FDR’s court-packing plan in the late 1930s.
- While it’s unclear whether Democrats’ bill to add four more justices to the Supreme Court will get a vote in the House, it’s doubtful the bill could advance in the Senate because it would be subject to the legislative filibuster, which requires 60 votes to limit debate and allow a passage vote.
RELATED READING
- Biden to Sign Executive Order Forming Commission to Explore Expansion of the Supreme Court (4/9/21)
- What is ‘Court Packing’ and What Happened When FDR Tried to Expand the Supreme Court? (10/12/20)
— Eric Revell
(Photo Credit: Markey: Senate Democrats via Flickr / Creative Commons | Pelosi: U.S. Embassy Ghana via Flickr / Creative Commons | iStock.com / Stratol)
The Latest
-
Vermont Measure to Charge Big Oil for Climate DamagesWhat’s the story? Vermont is expected to become one of the first states to hold Big Oil accountable for the damages caused by read more... Environment
-
IT: Trump's 2016 'deny, deny, deny' campaign strategy, and... How can you help the civilians of Ukraine?Welcome to Wednesday, May 8th, weekenders... As Trump's hush money trial enters it's third week, the 2016 campaign strategy of read more...
-
How To Help Civilians in UkraineHeavy shelling and fighting have caused widespread death, destruction of homes and businesses, and severely damaged read more... Public Safety
-
The Latest: Israel Evacuates Rafah, Palestinian Place of RefugeUpdated May 6, 2024, 12:00 p.m. EST The Israeli military is telling residents of Gaza who have sought shelter in Rafah to read more... Israel
I agree that there must be balance in the Supreme Court to ensure that both conservative and progressive ideologies, both traditional Republican and traditional Democratic legal perceptions, originalist and constitutionalist perspectives are fully considered in determining over-arching interpretations to resolve issues of the law that can have substantive influence over the lives and futures of this country’s residents. The Supreme Court must be perceived as being truly representative of all of the people impacted by their decisions for their determinations to be trusted as being fair and equitable. … … … McConnell’s successful and unethical Crusade to unbalance the Federal judiciary generally and the Supreme Court specifically with highly conservative appointees has jeopardized the requisite trust that the courts must have to be respected and accepted as non-political arbiters of justice. Without equity, without balance this core institution risks the loss of public trust which is critical for all of the institutions that support a functional democracy. … … … Expanding the court is a solution but I hope that other solutions can be found. I will wait until Biden’s commission studies this issue and reports. I hope that other solutions can be found. The courts must be in balance so that different viewpoints and perspectives will be fully represented to prevent domination by a single political or ideological perspective. Adding Justices may be that the best solution to undo McConnell’s unprecedented and self-serving Supreme Court packing - to protect the perceived integrity of this institution and the long term our government. … … … I will wait to hear from the commission charged to study this issue before committing to a Yeah or Nay opinion. I do hope a better solution can be found.
Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand the United States Supreme Court by adding four seats, creating a 13-justice Supreme Court.
The Republicans started this game by blocking Obama's ability to choose. Return the SCOTUS to a non political neutral body.
Yes I support expanding the court but not as how this question is posed as to liberal. Expand the court to have a broader view of the constitution, jurisprudence and legal opinions. The GOP has deliberately stacked the court with a right conservative view, moneyed interest which has tainted the majority of we the peoples opinion of the supposed highest court being supposed fair, just equal or independent. I am for fixing the courts. No life terms, free pacer, cameras in the courtroom and most importantly ethics and transparency reform. Mandatory recusals for when there is a conflict of interest such as stocks, business dealings, vacations and others that give the appearance of any inperpriorty, sad but true. As only a few examples attending the former Pompeo's lavish dinner parties on the tax payers dime or even worse unknown donors or having a wife that supported the coup inserection or one being forced to retire by a president. Most legal scholars along with the informed civic citizenry believe and have written or commented regarding the damage this does to the courts and the appearance of any inperpriorty and unbiased opinion. Another good reason for expanding the court and mandatory recusals for conflicts of interest leaving more justices actually in their seats hearing cases upon these recusals. When justice is not blind the whole legal system stinks and in fact is not even justice in any sense of the word. There should never be one set of rules/laws for those that can afford it and those that cannot. If the highest court in this country does not understand this, they do not deserve to be in the scotus. Our other branches of government should act on these reforms and fix the courts sooner rather than later. First though, they also need to pass all of the necessary needed reforms to our voting that simultaneously corresponds.
What people don’t understand is that this will set a precedent that either party can just change the rules of the highest court in this country whenever it doesn’t favor them. They ALSO don’t understand that if there’s an even number of justices, there can be a 50%-50% split… and we can’t have that either. Keep it the same! Get over it!
OF COURSE the GOP will scream "foul" about this, after all the foul things they did to pack the court because they play by one set of "rules" and hold everyone else to another set. They packed the court , in their favor, using every underhanded method they could think of.....it is only right, to level "the playing field".
The supreme court needs to expand in line with the increased population and complexity in the legal system.
You can’t change the rules in the middle of the game to try to get the outcome you want.
The GOP literally STOLE 2 seats not even following their own arguments. It untenable to allow this injustice to stand. I no longer trust the court at all to rule impartially. The barbarism represented in Kavanaughs opinion of approving life sentences for minors is but one totally inhuman positions which has come out of this stacked court. This court will also impede a global response to the climate crises which is an EXISTENTIAL THREAT TO THE HUMAN RACE.
There is only one way to fight the GOP and their dirty tactics determined to undermine our democracy - punch them where it hurts. We’ve been playing nice too damn long - they almost succeeded in killing hundreds of our elected representatives
Expansion of SCOTUS is essential to this country
first we don't need any more than 9. Though we do need 9 that are willing to do their job. If they are unwilling to do the job impartially as is stated in the job description they need to resign. We are already finding that we have chief justices that refuse to do that so why add more to the mess.
These democrats are court packing!!! They should play the game without changing the rules as they lose. It's like adding more yards during the football game so it gives the dems leverage to beet the republicans. 👎👎👎 Sore losers!!!!!
If the number of justices was always meant to reflect the number of districts, it seems clear we only have 9 because one party wanted to make it easier on themselves to maintain the majority and the decision had little to do with following standards or doing what was best for the people. As the number of districts grew to 13, “somehow” the number of justice remained stagnant, just like the bigoted views of the people who stand in the way of STANDARD operating procedures and progress.
Like rbg, I don’t think the court should be expanded, but I also don’t think those lifetime appointments have to be on scotus. The senate blocking O pick of Merrick garland changed the rules, but the rules say the president gets to pick not the senate. So, that seat should be replaced. Also, there should be an investigation into Kavanaugh as they are further witnesses that were not allowed to speak at his hearing. Those witnesses should be heard and there should be a full investigation. If it is deemed he is unfit for high office on scotus, he should be demoted to a lower role, possibly one that does not make rulings. Mitch McConnell’s damage needs to be undone. He changed the rules without authorization and we need to change the rules back to keep chaos out of scotus. We also apparently need to create a law saying the senate leader can’t hold back doing his job as a way to control our government without the representation authority of the people to do so. Only the President of the United States gets to make Scotus appointments. That my friends is in the constitution.
It undermining to tip the courts in either direction of politics. Our courts should be fair and unbiased. To add more Justices is just going add more in the future and turn it into another congress. Have a fewer Justices means to arrive to a decision faster.
Where will it all stop, this could set a precedent. When Republicans get back in control and they want more power they are going to want to add more justices. It is better to enact term limits.
Ridiculous! Just because one side didn't get their way, doesn't mean they can change the game! Wait, they are doing that...smh.
Get it done increase the supreme court members!
Republicans stole 2 Seats the only way to balance the court is to give back what was taken away.
Expanding the Supreme Court is not the best idea in the world. The next administration will expand the court, and so on until the court looks like Congress, useless. Consideration should be given to increasing the number of lessor courts. Bipartisan support should be given to getting politics off the bench and justice sitting. Justices should be chosen for the soundness of their legal minds not their party loyalty. Consideration should be given to term limits, 20 years or age 90 which ever come first. The insidious manipulations of the last four years should be a wake up call on both sides of the isle. Appoint for merit not political reward.
The supreme court should be increased by ONE judge. Republicans should install 5 and democrats should install 5 regardless of who holds the power in Washington. In this manner every American could be represented.